LibriumArcana.Games

CSM

[quote]President Obama on Friday unveiled a new set of vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that put the US auto industry on track to achieve a fleet average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 – a big step toward cutting oil imports and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, energy experts and environmentalists say.

The newly proposed standards, which more than double fuel efficiency compared with today's levels, follow close on the heels of earlier increases in fuel-economy standards, finalized in April. Under that previous rule, mileage will be raised to 35.5 m.p.g. by 2016, from about 24 m.p.g. today.

The new agreement would by 2025 cut US oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day – as much as half of the oil imported from OPEC each day, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. By 2030, it would also lower annual costs at the gas pump by more than $80 billion and cut annual carbon emissions from vehicle tailpipes by the equivalent output of 72 coal-fired power plants, according to a tally by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

RECOMMENDED: Got Volt sticker shock? Here are the five cheapest hybrids.

But to get there, automakers must boost mileage 5 percent each year between 2017 to 2025. Light trucks would progress more slowly at 3.5 percent annually from 2017 to 2021, accelerating to 5 percent annually from 2022 to 2025.

“This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we’ve ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,â€

It is a good step, but will it work?

How about a larger investment into things like nuclear power, battery technology, and charging station infrastructure? Really make a push. Throw in a high speed rail system to, say, the largest 20 metropolitan areas. Really leave your stamp on the American landscape.

He's suppose to get that through Congress how Cleric? Did you miss how Congress was almost ready to default on the US debt rather then give Obama anything he wanted? He's a President, not a bloody Autocrat and there is a limit to what he can do.

Also, I think nuclear power (at least in terms of the traditional fission light-water reactor) is a dead-letter, as people are less and less willing to accept a facility near their homes no matter how safe the plant actually is. Blame irrational animal spirits, blame sensationalist media, but for now we need to be looking towards other sources of energy to replace coal.

Oh, I'm well aware of the difficulty in getting anything actually DONE. It was more of a cry against the whole government, not Obama in particular.

Derek, until we get fusion down nuclear is the best option available. I wouldn't advocate abandoning it because certain people can't get past their inability to grasp facts.

The Cleric wrote:Oh, I'm well aware of the difficulty in getting anything actually DONE. It was more of a cry against the whole government, not Obama in particular.

Derek, until we get fusion down nuclear is the best option available. I wouldn't advocate abandoning it because certain people can't get past their inability to grasp facts.

Personally, I think diversification is an idea that doesn't just work in investment. Wind, solar, hydrokinetic, and geothermal are all good options, and deserve to be used as appropriate. There isn't a one-size-fits-all energy solution out there right now that would serve all of our needs - at least until fusion power is practical.

There are other uses for all of those power generation technologies that would be pushed by their being refined for power generation purposes, that would also help with technological growth in this country for years to come. Even fission nuclear has its place - as long as corporate accounting idiots don't decide to "cut costs" to little things like failsafes.

The only place I'm aware of where disastrous cuts in fail safes happened was in the USSR. And even then, the system worked unless you specifically did things to throw it off.

I mean look at the Japanese reactors, old as hell and somewhat ignored... It still took the 3rd worse earthquake in history to budge them.

frigidmagi wrote:The only place I'm aware of where disastrous cuts in fail safes happened was in the USSR. And even then, the system worked unless you specifically did things to throw it off.

I mean look at the Japanese reactors, old as hell and somewhat ignored... It still took the 3rd worse earthquake in history to budge them.

That's a fair criticism, I think. Lumping the Fukushima disaster in the same category as Chernobyl doesn't make sense, and was a false conflation.

I was however thinking of our US fission reactors though - and though we haven't had a nuclear disaster of our own yet, how oil companies have responded in recent times to oil spills does not fill me with confidence about our nuclear plants.

We regulate our nuclear plants alot more tightly then we do our oil companies.

frigidmagi wrote:We regulate our nuclear plants alot more tightly then we do our oil companies.

That does make me feel better about fission here in the US.

Nuclear fission is the safest power generation technology we have available. Wind/solar/geothermal aren't bad, but they aren't as reliable and they take energy from the environment. Large wind farms screw up bird flight patters, and solar farms are LESS efficient in hot climates (the ones with all the sun).

To clarify, nuclear is the safest form of power generation by power generated divided by the number of deaths. Solar has far fewer deaths (don't forget that a lot of solar equipment is created by heinously toxic methods) but far less power generated. Coal and hydro (my native province coasts off of hydro) have far larger body counts.